Supreme court rejects challenge to NY gun law

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is staying out of the gun debate for now.

The justices on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York law that makes it difficult for residents to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The high court action comes amid an intensifying congressional debate on new gun control measures. The issue has resurfaced prominently in Washington in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting that killed 20 children and six adults.

219 Responses

Lawrence I am not sure what we can read into this as it should not have been totally unexpected. The Supreme Court basically refused to hear a challenge against the Sullivan Act which has stood for over one hundred years in NY State. In the Heller decision they clearly left open the door for regulation at the state and local level and the justices choice to not even hear this case supports that. I do know that the opponents of the Safe Act should not feel quite as certain that it will be found unconstitutional in it’s entirety, if at all.

Cue the right-wing hypocrisy where they harp on states’ rights as inalienable then cry foul when SCOTUS doesn’t step in to prevent a state from regulating something in the way that state chooses to. And… GO.

Jackson P
I am also in awe of how they blame the victim for the crime. For instance Chicago is experiencing a huge number shootings by guns from out of state – yet they blame Chicago and not the ultra liberal laws that empower the suppliers of illegal guns through straw sales and sales at certain suppliers and gun shows outside of Chicago. I believe it is a strategy to escape any responsibility whatsoever. It is not working anymore.

This may come as a shock and surprise to you, Lawrence, and anyone else who CHOOSES not to “see the forest for the trees”, but might you just consider the possibility that “the blame” for all of the shootings in Chicago rests firmly on the shoulders of the “gang bangers” and other Criminals who are pulling the triggers.

Expanding background checks may reduce a small portion of that problem and tightenening up on “Straw-Man” sales may also reduce the availability of firearms being purchased by those who shouldn’t have them, but the lions share of the problem does rest with the inability of the City of Chicago to clean up the mess, of inner city gangs, that has been allowed to fester and grow to the extent of plaguing Chicago for generations.

I would presume the City of New York would be happy to share it’s knowledge of its successful “Stop & Frisk” programwhich has enjoyed extremely favorable results since it’s inception.

@Mr. White:
No, NYC benefited when Giuliani went after the gangs and enforced the laws. What isn’t needed are vigilantes like Bloomberg screwing up investigations and putting the safety of LEO in jeopardy.

“…how they blame the victim for the crime” Huh?! For the most part the political right puts the blame/responsibility where it belongs…..on the person COMMITTING the crime – not the victim.

I am all in favor of background checks. However, I am not in favor of the smoke and mirrors that politicians use to make us think we have background checks; what exactly is a “Universal” background check?

FFL Sales

FFL’s selling firearms, regardless of the venue, are and have been for a long time required to do background checks. The gun show “loop hole” has nothing to do with FFL dealers.

Private Transfers.

The current proposals vary but all have in common the idea that a background check should be conducted for private sale or gift to non relatives. The definition of relative varies depending on the proposed bill. Here is where we get into a couple of issues; the ability to enforce and the land of unintended consequences. Since these transfers are by their nature private and there currently is not system of tracking all firearms there is no way to know that they are occurring (with the exception of handguns requiring registration). This result is an honor system, the non criminals will try to comply and criminals will not. This means the system will not prevent the very people who should not have guns from having them. Then there are unintended consequences like New York has. Mandatory background checks on private transfers with no requirement for dealers to conduct them and a fee set well below the market rate. This creates a situation where the honest become tempted to be dishonest because compliance with the law is not possible. The transfer fees have been established by primarily online sales (FFL and Private) which require delivery to an FFL. The other unintended consequence is the creation of a gun laundering situation where a gun is stolen offered for private sale, the background check is on the buyer side, FFL does the background check and buyer passes; is the FFL an accessory to selling stolen property?

Transfers to relatives are exempt from background checks in most proposals I have read; which means, from my understanding, that even with the new “Universal” background check the awful tragedy in Sandy Hook still would have occurred and none of the proposed background check laws would have been violated.

What I have been trying to point out is that I believe our politicians are working the background check problem from the wrong end. We have a woefully in adequate NICS system that needs vast improvement. In its current state even if 100% of the firearm transfers were run through the system a criminal would have a one in four chance in passing and a person barred from owing a firearm for mental or behavioral health reasons would have a four in five chance in passing.

My point is that we should be putting resources into the NICS to create a system where person who is prohibited from owning a firearm for any reason has only a one in a hundred chance of passing the back ground check then we can figure how to build a system that requires more transfers to include a background check.

Can’t wait to hear from our patriots, about their inability to redress their grievances, now that SCOTUS has shot them down. I wonder who among them will know which of their rights they now feel are now being infringed.

Timmy, it’s over. The court will not hear their pitiful complaints. Hard to be convinced your rights are being infringed when you can still buy as many of each of any of the more than 2,000 guns on the market.

How typical of a liberal to deflect the blame on someone else.
Criminal in Chicago goes out odf state to by an illegal gun, goes back to Chicago and shoots another either criminal or gang member, or committ armed robbery etc… but the BLAME doesn’t belong in Chicago?

it’s no surprise the Supreme court we have now does anything except uphold the liberal agenda. Why do you think Obama picked the justices he did, because they were conservative?

It is a disgrace what the Supreme Court did.
If a State makes a Law effecting freedom of speech, no matter how big or small the change is, the people of that State should have the right to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the U.S. Supreme Court is allow to act this way what will stop States from doing whatever they want to do?

It is a disgrace.
I don’t know how long you have been watching the supreme court but if this is the first time have been surprised by their one of their decisions it is clear you have not been watching them for very long.

You are kidding, right? Please tell me you are kidding! OMG, you are serious!!!! You write: “Tony Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and Anthony Kennedy are CINOs – Conservatives In Name Only.” C’mon man. Were you home schooled by watching Fox News and listening to Rush? You must know Scalia’s regarded as one of the most conservative justices ever to serve on the court. I guess you’re not really a political science major, are ya TC?

@ Jakester You pontificate: “it’s no surprise the Supreme court we have now does anything except uphold the liberal agenda. Why do you think Obama picked the justices he did, because they were conservative?”

The Roberts Court is upholding the liberal agenda? Oh, man! Surely you jest! President Obama appointed liberal Justices Sotomayor and Kagen to traditionally liberal seats. Just a question…Were you TC’s classmate?

@ KnowItAll
No – I don’t see answering comments as an obligation. I see it as a duty. Those who care enough to comment should know that their words are not just thrown out into cyberspace and sucked into the void. They deserve to know that there is a person here who, agree or not, cares enough to come back at you. Not many blogs do that. Thanks for noticing.

Lawrence, Tony B, and everybody,
To be fair, this is a push. NYS’s “Proper Cause” requirement stands, as it has since 1911. The gun absolutists failed to get a law that’s been around for 100 years declared unconstitutional. This changes nothing on either side, and is not a big deal in my opinion.

@ Raphael Kramden
Whenever the NRA and other like minded, special interest groups place so much emphasis on any piece of gun legislation it is very reassuring when justices emphasis is on the law and not on politics. This has not always the case.

Lawrence says “How typical of a gun radical to advocate for gun profiteers to escape any responsibility.
The supreme court is made up of 5 conservative judges and 4 moderates.”

Now I’m a gun radical, well if you say so, but then I guess you must be a crazed anti gun nut and want to abolish the second amendment?

Obama has placed 2 socialists/communists on the court and YOU think they’re moderate… but of course you do he definitely would select someone who doesn’t share his plan for a socialist America. Yeah, right.

I guess I disagree with both your opinions.

So if a car dealer in another state sells a car to a drunk driver, it’s the car profiteers responsibility, not the person driving drunk? yeah that sounds sensible…

Have a clue, please…

As for how liberal the court is, they voted to uphold Obama care by pressuring the justice with the swing vote who caved in to pressure from politicians and the media
with crap like this will be your legacy we’ll never let you live this down… denying care to millions. When just a few years ago Hillary Clinton couldn’t get her socialized plan through both houses and her husband an she were the president. Of course she didn’t use bribes like Obama but none the less…
I case you’re not aware, socialized health care is liberal. Redistribution of middle class wealth is liberal.
Legalizing drugs is liberal, placing blame on anyone BUT the individual responsible for the actions IS liberal.
Abolishing second amendment rights is liberal.
I am not and never will be a liberal.

@ Jakester
Thanks for confirming that you advocate for gun profiteers get a free ride. In fact is if a bar serves a drunk too much liquor and he drives to another state – guess what – the bar and the driver are still liable.

Your charge that communists are on the Supreme Court further defines you.

And finally yes you are a liberal. You adore the ultra liberal gun laws of the past and you wish for them to continue. So when it comes to gun laws, you are a screaming liberal.

MS @ 10
Sorry I didn’t respond to your comments until this morning. I got a little distracted yesterday having children living in Boston, two of which were at the at the finish line just prior to the bombings.

I agree completely with your comments regarding the problems with NICS. It needs to be fixed, but it also needs to be applied uniformly across the nation. I see a federal law requiring background checks on as many gun sales as possible as a step toward achieving some uniformity. Will it be perfect, no, there will always be problems with straw sales and the “honor system” factor. But the fact that over 1.5 million sales have been prevented by the NICS system indicates that some level of gun violence has been prevented. As a gun owner who has gone through the system on many purchases, and even considerably more scrutiny for my hand gun purchases, I will gladly accept the inconvenience.

I am curious to hear more from those against the assault weapons ban in the SAFE Act and their reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the challenge to the Sullivan Act. I don’t see the two issues being that closely connected that the assault weapons ban will not still be challenged.

Jakester:
“So if a car dealer in another state sells a car to a drunk driver, it’s the car profiteers responsibility, not the person driving drunk? yeah that sounds sensible…

Have a clue, please…”

I agree, but they won’t. They will never admit a point and when faced with facts do their best to demean any one.
So you’r a gun nut? A radical righter? That is their method.
Just like the threats to the sheriffs pay in Co.

OMG. Criminals held responsible? Cant be! Must be them horrible gun dealers a thousand miles away! Yup Thats the problem!

here’s the NYS counties that do not support the safe act… and Lawrence please don’t ever call me a liberal.

The fact that you could/would ever try to spin the argument/discussion that NYS has liberal gun laws defines you as clueless, in denial or both. I argue for a common sense approach and protections under the constitution. Two things that a liberal would NEVER do.

You’re spinning more than ever, I NEVER said the bar that sold a drunk driver drinks wouldn’t be responsible, I said a car dealer.

Further more, any bar that sells alcohol to a person “on the way” to becoming a drunk driver is not responsible. Responsible people have a designated driver,
call a friend or ride in a taxi.

TonyB, did you really just say ” Guns do not kill people. It is the person operating the gun. Manufacturing the gun, serving the gun and ammo.” WHAT ?

Tony B:
“It is the person operating the gun. Manufacturing the gun, serving the gun and ammo.”

So Ford & Chevy should also bear the same responsibility of the gun manufacturers, because a drunk used a car and killed a family?
The we should also go after the fuel companies for producing the fuel, Ohh and Stewarts because they SOLD the fuel.

#52- LiftUptheFlag;
I agree with your contention about the Sullivan Act and the SAFE Act. It seems to me that the Sullivan Act dealt with the idea of restricting concealed carry pistol permits, which I believe the Supreme Court said is permissable in the Heller decision, while the SAFE Act deals with (among other things)a ban on future sales of certain firearms referred to as “assault weapons”.

In the Heller decision, the Supreme Court references the Miller decision that held that ‘the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”’. The lawsuit brought by the NY Rifle and Pistol Association mentions that the “assault weapons” provisions of the SAVE Act affects firearms that are commonly owned today. I think this point will be significant when this case is argued in lower and upper courts and I don’t think the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the challenge to the Sullivan Act will influence the Court’s decision to hear the SAFE Act case if it gets that far.

Considering Lawrence’s last posting and my continued frustration with Julie, who like others believe their rights are being infringed by legal gun control laws while ignoring the utter and complete infringement of 2nd Amendment and all other rights guaranteed to all our citizens by our Constitution, or the pain such infringements causes to so many others who’ve also had their rights simultaneously stripped utterly away forever, a recap of some of the issues she raises continually seems warranted, to wit, inappropriate terminology:

First, Julie, some of us are indeed moderate gun owners who believe regulation of firearms is necessary. Some of us have military experience and some of us know as much about munitions, firearms, long guns, shotguns and rifles, as any gun aficionado and certainly more than many pro gunners posting here. So how about you slack off with your complaining that we do not know what we’re talking about? And yes, I’ve referred to magazines as clips, as do many shooters I know.

For your benefit I hope you’ll review the links to see that I had also sought repeatedly to clarify why the term “Assault” weapon had been applied to rifles like the AR-15 and hopefully you’ll recognize how often folk on your side have ignored and continue to ignore the reality that the manufacturer popularized the term to boost civilian sales. All this occurred before Lawrence or Daniel began posting in February.

@Lawrence White
You state that gun manufacturers are not subject to recalls and liability. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The laws that you are referring to shield the manufacturers from liability for the use of a firearm in a crime. If the firearm is defective or the manufacturer is knowingly providing firearms to criminals, they can absolutely have lawsuits brought against them. Just like an automobile manufacturer can’t be held liable if a crazy person decides to drive a vehicle down a crowded sidewalk.

If a certain firearm model has a history of exploding in the user’s hands when fired due to parts that aren’t up to spec, you will see lawsuits and recalls just like if a car had a history of the accelerator getting stuck.

@67.)BigSol:
If manufactures did not make 30 round magazines the circulation of them could be reduced. If firearms with military applications were not sold to the public it would make the ability to acquire one more difficult. If BC checks were done, and made mandatory, some people who should not be in possession of a firearm may not obtain one.

I do not advocate banning ALL weapons. I do not live in “utopia, Disney nor am I naive. Making it harder for those who should not grab a gun does not make me a ‘gun grabber’.

@Lawrence White
The article says that the suit is being reinstated, and also does not mention any liability shield laws as the reason that it was initially dismissed.

Regarding the merits of this particular suit, the trigger was pulled and the gun fired, as it was manufactured to do. This wasn’t a manufacturing failure. These weapons are specifically made without the traditional grip or thumb safeties in order to allow for an immediate response. That’s part of the reason that so many police departments buy them. If there was an engaged safety, and the weapon fired anyway, Glock can and would be sued.

Also, why did a law enforcement officer, who should have known better, leave his loaded gun withing reach of a 3 year old? I don’t see him winning this lawsuit at all.

The Sullivan law was not deemed constitutional. SCOTUS denied the writ of certiorari for Kachalsky v. Cacase. They made no judgements on it whatsover, they simply declined to hear it without comment, which is true of 99% of cases submitted to them.

@Lawrence White
I never said that Glock had a clean record, only that my search didn’t turn up anything besides the case that I mentioned. In addition to that, I still cannot find any examples where they were shielded by these laws that you are referring to.

A gun manufacturer is not protected from being sued for “an action for death, physical injuries or prop-
erty damage resulting directly from a defect in design
or manufacture of the product, when used as intended
or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that
where the discharge of the product was caused by
a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense,
then such act shall be considered the sole proximate
cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or prop-
erty damage”

Glock is clearly eligible to be sued if manufacturing defects have caused injury, just like an automobile manufacturer. If lawsuits are not being brought when they should, it is not the shield laws that are stopping them.

@ beefeater
That passage in the law is exactly why the judge allowed the legal action be reinstated.

Here are two quotes captured during the legal proceedings into the liability that provide an excellent perspective of where the two sides are coming from:

1) “American firearms makers don’t have deep pockets, and the industry would be at risk simply from the cost of fighting the lawsuits.” Wayne LaPierre, NRA

2) “This is the first time that the federal government will be stepping in and retroactively depriving injured people of their vested legal rights under state law, without providing them any alternative.” Dennis Henigan, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

@Lawrence White
If this law explicitly allows them to be sued for manufacturing defects, then how are they getting a free ride, as you claim in comment 64?

They are being sued for a claimed manufacturing defect. I still think that Glock will not be found guilty, unless the gun went off without the trigger being pulled. From what I’ve seen, it looks like the child pulled the trigger, which fired a round. If the gun went off on it’s own, then Glock deserves to share in some of the blame. However, the majority of the blame has to be on the person who left a loaded gun in the reach of a 3 year old! Seriously, what was this guy thinking?

Also, the NRA quote is in reference to the large amount of frivolous lawsuits that were brought by victims of various crimes. If auto manufacturers had to defend themselves in court for every drunk driving death, they would go bankrupt as well. With regards to the Brady quote, victims still have the ability to go after those who actually committed the crime. They also have the ability to go after the manufacturer if they broke the law when selling the gun.

@77 Johnny R,
You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to.
Either way, the 100 year old law stays put. Keep abiding, please.

——————————————————–

And this is why you people’s efforts go nowhere. You simply can’t be bothered to take even ten minutes to educate yourself, so your opinions are pretty much ignored by everyone else. Take a look at congress, the new “common sense conservative gun laws” are about to bite the dust, even the watered down background checks, you really have to be a sensei master at political incompetence to manage that. And every ignorant post by you people helps that along.

Upthread there’s a post by an actual blogger on TU Guns who thinks that this decision was about NYSAFE, how on earth could any reasonably informed person make that mistake? Kachalsky has been in the court system for 6 years, it’s not a secret. And he’s supposedly an expert on gun legislation?

Kachalsky wasn’t about overturning the Sullivan Law. It was about applying a uniform standard as to who can carry a pistol and who can’t, the same standard that 48 other states have. The 48 states where you people lost.

@ Johnny Ratchet
From what I understand this blog gets tens of thousand of hits every month. Mr. Kramden is hardly being ignored. In fact he is being admired by many of us.

The new laws are the first in 20 years. They were accomplished in spite of historic highs in lobby spending, political / product advertising and outright propaganda by the weapons industry and the NRA.

The new more conservative laws are here. The will be amended but they will never be repealed. You can slow change down Johnny but you will never stop it. Change is here.

Firearms manufacturers are not subject to the same laws as other manufacturers; they are not subject to any order issued by the Consumer Product Safety Act, an agency that by law is prohibited from regulating firearms, their sale or manufacture.

You can either be part of the problem or part of its solution, your choice.

@ Johnny Ratchet
From what I understand this blog gets tens of thousand of hits every month. Mr. Kramden is hardly being ignored. In fact he is being admired by many of us.

The new laws are the first in 20 years. They were accomplished in spite of historic highs in lobby spending, political / product advertising and outright propaganda by the weapons industry and the NRA.

The new more conservative laws are here. The will be amended but they will never be repealed. You can slow change down Johnny but you will never stop it. Change is here.

———————————————————-

Where are the new laws exactly, Lawrence? Everything federally is dead. No AWB, nothing. Unless you have a new “conservative gun law” I don’t know about.

And for Charles Samuels, the fact that he doesn’t know the difference, or can’t be bothered to learn it, between a 6 year court action and the current lawsuits against NYSAFE which were only filed this month can stand for itself.

@84 Johnny Ratchet,
Your arrogance and misplaced indignation are growing tiresome. Did you actually read the 2nd Circuit Court’s decision in Kachalsy v. Cacace, or did you get your opinion from TheBlaze.com?

In case you missed it, here’s the best parts from pages 47 and 48:

“Our review of the history and tradition of firearm regulation does not “clearly demonstrate” that limiting handgun possession in public to those who show a special need for self-protection is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.”

“Accordingly, we decline Plaintiffs’invitation to strike down New York’s one-hundred-year-old law and call into question the state’s traditional authority to extensively regulate handgun possession in public.”

And for your further perusal, here is more good judgement from the Circuit Court. Anyone, feel free to save these gems for future re-posting on this blog.

“New York’s legislative judgment concerning handgun possession in public was made one-hundred years ago. In 1911, with the enactment of the Sullivan Law, New York identified the dangers inherent in the carrying of handguns in public.”

“Plaintiffs misconstrue the character and scope of the Second Amendment. States have long chosen to regulate the right to bear arms because of the risks posed by its exercise.”

“Plaintiffs are quick to embrace the majority’s view in ‘Heller’ that handguns are the “quintessential self-defense weapon for law abiding Americans today and extrapolate that right to public possession of a handgun. Thus, for Plaintiffs, handgun possession in public has the ring of an absolute constitutional right. This of course overlooks ‘Heller’s’ careful restriction of its reach to the home and is in sharp contrast with New York’s view of concealed handguns one-hundred years ago as “the handy,the usual and the favorite weapon of the turbulent criminal class. Darling, 154 A.D. at 423-24. It seems quite obvious to us that possession of a weapon in the home has far different implications than carrying a concealed weapon in public.”

That’s right Johnny. the Supreme Court of the U.S. didn’t feel like overturning any of that. Your problem is with them, not with me, bro.

@ Julie
“We urge the citizens of New York State to remember that Troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the State, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws.”

I was asked to do many things I did not agree with when I was in service to my country and I did them. These troopers will do the same thing.

@Tony B, You are entirely welcome, sir. I honestly don’t know how you and Mr. W put up with the aggressive and insulting misrepresentations all day long. You must have limitless patience. ¡Hasta mañana!

@101 Tony, a revolver only has about 10 parts and has been around since the 1700’s. A semi auto pistol has less than 30 and has been around for at least 102 years. (The Colt 1911 was released in 1911. Go figure)

A semi auto rifle has about the same number of parts as the pistol and been around since the 1860’s.

Apart from materials very little changed till Stoner designed the M16 A1 in the 1950’s.

One thing I noticed is that while we are in here discussing the violation of the second amendment, the law makers are passing laws to allow 11 million illegal aliens a path to citizenship. By passing all of the legal immigrants. The cost of this is estimated at 1 trillion dollars of our tax money.

Cnn is not covering this.

Someone doing abortions in a back room is facing trial, because abortions are being made illegal. Therefore not available in a safe, clean medical environment where the patient can get the medical care they need, if needed.

This is the very reason Rowe Vs Wade was passed in the first place.

Again, not covered by CNN.

The budget being passed will not reduce the debt, but increase it. Govt spending increases, more taxes being paid by all and despite the tax increase, still the debt climbs.

Again, not covered by CNN

So they cover the fight by law abiding citizens, from laws that the police say will not help, by lawmakers that admit will not stop the next mass killing. EG Boston.

If someone wants to do harm, they will find a way. Locks are for honest people, a criminal will find a way in despite your best efforts to stop them.

And the people who read CNN et al, are oblivious to the facts above. What a great redirect! Easy to do, enrage those that don’t know the difference and cover their tracks as we ALL and I include our children are plunged into a terrible debt.

If the president had unified us, pulled us together, we as Americans could have handled this debt crisis. Not easily, but we as a people, together, could have risen to succeed.

EG: In 1963 we heard the president say “We will go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard!” And in 1969, we did.

I chatted up a NYC Police officer last time I was there regarding the SAFE Act and assault weapons. His comment stuck with me- “There is no reason for those weapons to be in the hands of civilians.” Get busy registering those assault rifles kids, ya don’t want those black helios delivering UN Stormtroopers in the middle of the night to confiscate your precious assault rifles, and drag you off to a black site at Obama’s FEMA camp for questioning. Hurry up now, get those registrations done! BTW many upstate county clerks have said that not too many concealed carry folks have applied to withhold their info from the public. Hmmm?

@ joseph cea
Thank you for your concern however I am not embarrassed in the slightest to support the new more conservative gun laws.

1) People vote – counties do not. The SAFE Act is very popular with a majority of New Yorkers.
2) The bill passed in the assembly by an overwhelming majority at 4pm in the afternoon and was signed the Governor that night.
3) The SAFE Act will be amended but it will never be repealed.
4) Most lawmakers will stand by the SAFE Act

@Tony B:
I don’t think Julie is saying CNN is out to get her or anybody – just that the events they choose to show only represents a singular political ideology instead of being neutral and simply presenting unbiased news.

Mr. White,
You really do ignore that about, 90 percent of the counties have gone against the SAFE act, that local, county and state law Enforcment has gone against it, that mental health professionals have gone against it, even the ACLU is against expanded background checks, I am shocked at that one myself. Well ignore or you don’t care.
As to the opt out forms for pistol permits, there are certain reason for that, not a lot of people are going to qualify. I have to turn mine in today.

1) People vote – counties do not. (isnt it the people IN the counties asking for this?)

The SAFE Act is very popular with a majority of New Yorkers. – this is a misleading statement, IMO. On its face, if you ask Joe Sixpack if he is in favor of less gun violence, OF COURSE his answer is yes. You believe the SAFEACT does this. Therefore you seem to think Mr. Sixpack supports said act.

I am dissapointed that after 1000’s of posts back and forth, you have not even attempted to compromise your position. Points are made, questions are posed, and they are shot down as extreme views and change is here etc.

Its a lot of your “boy” repeating your answer and you guys thanking each other for being in agreement.

All of us want ALL people to feel and be safe – we just dont agree on what makes each of us get there.

@ PW
The polls are clear. A majority of New Yorkers are in favor of more conservative gun laws. The 2nd amendment gives us the right to own weapons but it does give us the right to own any weapon nor does it give us the right to escape responsibility. The founding fathers exercised strict gun controls. If those same controls were in place today you have have less rights, not more. However the founding fathers did not have to deal with a mega weapons industry gun lobby willing to spend any amount to maintain their bottom line. That is what has skewed this debate into a sort of wonderland where the number of bullets in a magazine is more crucial than the lives of the victims.

“A majority of New Yorkers are in favor of more conservative gun laws” – but maybe not this LAWl – as you said, parts will be changed. Perhaps more talks should have be had before rushing the bill to make a statement. Backtracking now makes the Gov look like a dolt. IF he somehow gets it right and pleases MOST people then good for him. Not sure that is possible

7/10 bullets is one important part of the debate. Telling people they are criminals due to 8 bullets makes them shake their head in confusion. We ALL know criminals aren’t going to do this. and its a silly thing to even suggest. It doesnt provide more SAFETY.

We have background checks now – suppose the SAFEACT makes them “better” – people would be ok with that – but then why are so many people bent about this part of the bill?

Im not sure anyone is asking not to be responsible, if anything it is the opposite – All the people arguing against you in here WANT the shooter to be held responsible, not the gun. As the Boston bomber is, not the pressure cooker bomb

I cant get into the mega weapons industry part – I dont disagree that our government is FILLED with these types of folks paying big $$ to get things their way. I dont agree with it. Even for gun makers. I have ZERO idea how to curb this other than getting rid of EVERYONE and starting over clean.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I think some politicians go into it thinking they are going to be the ones to “clean it up” – then they are taken in and shown the real deal, the $$ involved, etc. and they realize they cant fix it at all.

Lawrence, your spin is duly noted, however, it’s doesn’t change the fact that NYS already had the most
“conservative” gun laws, especially compared to the rest of the country. NY ranked 4th in toughest gun laws BEFORE the Newtown shootings. That’s out of 50 states, so spin some more for us how that’s NOT already conservative. I was perfectly happy with the laws we had already before Cuomo decided he had to beat Obama to the punch and score a new law in the middle of the night, including some elements of which are ridiculous, are challenged by almost every county in the state and don’t make anyone any more safe than what they were…

Term limits and campaign spending limits and conflict of interest laws where taking money, jobs or funds from anyone or any business you had contacts with while you were in office, ILLEGAL.

@ jakester
The most conservative of liberal gun laws is still liberal compared to those in the rest of the modern world.

The SAFE law was voted on in the assembly at 4pm in the afternoon. Mr.Cuomo signed it in the evening.

Again, counties don’t vote, people do, and the public has shown their support for the SAFE Act.

Campaign spending limits are the law? Where? Ever hear of the Citizens United decision? The spending in this last election was historic. After one year out of office politicians are free to become lobbyists.

@Mr White:
You don’t see the political ideology rift because you agree with the liberal left opinions that are being presented and thus don’t see that there is a whole other aspect missing.

1) The people are voting through their county legislators because King Andy never gave them the opportunity at the state level.

2) At 4pm after only several hours of “debate” when there should’ve been days and an opportunity for legislators to hear from their constituents.

3) Any amendments will reflect the way the law should’ve looked initially if the Governor, absent his political aspirations, took the time to craft a well intentioned and meaningful law that actually will prevent a school shooting.

4) One by one each lawmaker will either concede this law in its current form is ineffective and that politics took precedence over safety. If they don’t one thing is certain – they will be our of job the next time their re-election comes up.

@112.) Joseph Cea:
“I don’t think Julie is saying CNN is out to get her or anybody – just that the events they choose to show only represents a singular political ideology instead of being neutral and simply presenting unbiased news.”

@Mr. White:
20 Years in the making? Where did you pull that arbitrary number out of? What event sparked the Safe act 20 years ago or was it just arbitrarily dreamed of? How long was this law presented to the public – mere hours with the majority of that time actually during the night when most people are sleeping.

Are you not familiar with civics 101. If the counties are passing laws that seek to not enforce the Safe Act and that is done by majority then how are you determining that most people are in favor of this law? This is a really a simple math problem the majority of the people in the majority of the counties don’t like this law. It’s pretty straightforward.

@ joseph cea
I just pulled that number out of calendar. It has been that long since we have seen any meaningful legislation and it is about time. Darn shame it took such hideous carnage to get some people off their butts.

What is straightforward is that the majority of the PEOPLE in New York favor the law. No matter which way you try to spin it – that is a fact.

Really, you have Sheriffs saying that they will not enforce the law. Again, over 90 percent of law enforcemnt is against gun control. There is already federal law suit in the works from what I showed you earlier, with the NYSP and revoking the wrong permit over medication.

I already posted this, look at it again please.
95 percent don’t beloved magazine limt has ZERO effect
70 percent say ban on semi automatic would have ZERO effect on crime
20 Percent say that ban on semi automatics would have a NEGITIVE effect on crime.
90 percent of officers support concealed carry and believe that it would reduce casualties in an active shooter situation.

As to the revocation issue, violation of federal HIPPA laws, illegal search and seizure. No big deal?? Man I would loose my job and be on the front page of every local paper if I did that.

I find it interesting that you were all happy with your Morning Joe poll that was what, 1200 people that represented an entire country. This poll was over 15000 for a specific job. So we have a bigger sample size of a smaller population but that poll is wrong?

@ Julie
I marched for human/ethnic rights starting in the 60’s. Most of the time I was in a minority and facing a very hostile opposition, particularly when it came to race. When we protested the law by using civil disobedience we expected that we would be arrested or attacked but that was part of it because our belief was that strong.

Protest and activism is an American tradition. Millions of Americans protest every year. They do so as individuals and in groups. However I must admit that I have never in my life seen such WWF style whining and histrionics as that which emanates from the pro gun mega-lobby, and only over common sense regulations. My goodness. It should be embarrassing. The fact that it is not is only due to the focus on the bottom line and the hyper propaganda advertising that is a result. It is all about the money. What other industry would use our constitution as a sales pitch?

So please don’t expect crocodile tears from me because you have 7 bullets in your magazine and not 10. I care more about human life than that. You know – as in HUMAN rights.

@ Fast Fred
You may have heard the saying he who smiles last smiles best. This is not over with yet FF. You can count on that. There is a long way to go – but it is only a little while to 2014. These gun lobby politicians who voted down today will hear from the public at that time.

So while you dance your little dance and laugh and mock those of us who advocate for the victims of gun violence and work to lower their numbers – you might consider that as you frolic in faux joy another of your fellow Americans will be shot and killed, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another,and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another,and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

That would be an internal departmental issue. My guess is removal from the job, they could also be removed to a desk for a bit then sent back out. However when you have the Sheriff themselves saying they will not, that is an elected position. That would be up to the people. However, does everyone that gets pulled over for speeding get a ticket?

I care about human life as well. I am guessing you protested at Kent State right?

I care that ineffective laws were passed without proper consultation or thought.

I find it strange that in one post you say you stood against a law you found wrong, but tell me I MUST OBEY.

You ignore the police statements, the psychologists, the people that really do have a clue and stick to your guns.

I also find it frightening that you accept that the police have access to personal medical data. “Oh… they made a mistake”. WTF? Why were they in that data anyway? You don’t see that as a violation between doctor and patient privacy?

@ Julie.
I can not figure out how you can gets something so wrong that is written down.

What I said was they when we applied civil disobedience we knew we would be arrested or attacked. However our cause meant that much to us.

Yes. Police and law enforcement make mistakes and can over reach at times. If the problem is corrected and then the issue is put through the court I really don’t see why you are complaining about.

The opinions on the new more conservative gun laws vary within law enforcement and the mental health field just as they do in all of society. When you keep indicating that only those who agree with you are legitimate it reveals your lack of objectivity and weakens your argument considerably.

@ joseph cea
Repetition day in and day out. 30 more then 30 more then thirty more then 30 more then 30 more then thirty more then 30 more then thirty more then 30 more then 30 more then thirty more until pretty soon there are more Americans killed by gunfire in our own country than all of our troops in all of the battles in all of our history. We are trying to mute that process.

Mr. Lawrence, actually I’m not cheering, great sadness with what happened in Boston. You sir, though need to take some time off, I can see it in your comment. BTW-I’m not against background checks, but what comes after. Thanks for posting my comment, I didn’t think you would, please learn to handle the truth.

So Lawrence, are you mad? That change is not here??? Are you mad that the Saratoga Civic Center had many pro-gun patriots there to snub the anti-gun propaganda. There will be gun shows in Saratoga..sorry! The liberal gun laws are still not going to be less liberal in the US govemerment’s eyes!

A sad day for gun owners today. Most do not realize it, but when the Senate blocked even the most water downed version of background checks it guaranteed the continued flow of illegally acquired guns to many localities in the US. Someday, not today, not tomorrow but someday the tipping point will come where gun violence will cause American gun owners to actually lose many of their rights. As a law-abiding, lifelong gun owner I am find it incomprehensible that in some places in America a criminal can buy a gun with absolutely no hurdles in place to prevent the purchase.

A155 Mr. White, I know what the vote was for, read my comment #152, the part after “BTW”.
Would background checks have saved that little boy in Boston, who just had hugged his father….one life or twenty, one is too many. Does anyone take up the cause to save other innocent victims of violent crimes, not related to guns!?!
I’m sure all the anti-gun backers are good people, as are the pro-gun backers. We all want the same thing, but we disagree on how it should be done. Continue with your rant, and have a nice evening….2014 as you say, is coming, we’ll do it by voting! I also look forward to it!

@ Fast Fred
I have no doubt that there are good people on both sides of the debate. However there is a wild card and it is the weapons industry. They have a vested interest in maintaining a free flow of their product in our society so that the profit free flows into their bank. They have also shown a complete willingness to use the most blatant forms of propaganda, outright lies, and the constitution as sales gimmicks. The vote was 54 in favor. A majority. Just like the majority of Americans they were shut out by their investment into right wing politicians. This is not the end. Not by a long shot. 2012 was a hint of the voter’s backlash to come. I do hope you are ready to enjoy it.

@165 I get the jest, that you have something against free enterprise, this is the United States of America. If you are so opposed to guns, don’t buy them.
If you’re worried about criminals having guns, these laws aren’t going to stop them, but you don’t want to listen, and that’s your choice.
BTW- Lawrence, would you be a crusader against the killing of innocent people when the weapon of choice is a bomb!?! You think background checks will also stop that??

@ Fast Fred
Is that what you would tell a gun violence victim? Just don’t get shot. The SAFE Act will be amended but it will never be repealed. We may have to wait until after the election in 2014 for federal legislation but it will come.

Lawrence:
“What I said was they when we applied civil disobedience we knew we would be arrested or attacked. However our cause meant that much to us.”

As does the second amendment does to us. The way these laws were written and passed was not in the best interest of anyone, but a self serving lawmaker.

“Yes. Police and law enforcement make mistakes and can over reach at times. If the problem is corrected and then the issue is put through the court I really don’t see why you are complaining about.”

I am complaining about the fact they DID over reach. They need to obey the law as we do. Just like Holder, the super of the State Police just said ” I didn’t know”. BS of the worst kind. He got caught. They need to be arrested, tried and face justice.

“The opinions on the new more conservative gun laws vary within law enforcement and the mental health field just as they do in all of society. When you keep indicating that only those who agree with you are legitimate it reveals your lack of objectivity and weakens your argument considerably.”

But when these numbers are so far out of proportion then something is wrong. I doubt very much, that all of the law enforcement agencies have EVER responded as they have, at ANY time in US history.

The lawmakers behavior is contemptible and an embarrassment to the people of the US.

@168 Fast Fred,
Are you sure this is the United States of America? Cause I just heard about legislation which got 54 yes votes adn 46 no votes and crazy CNN said it was defeated. Doesn’t sound like the America I learned about in school.

Regarding bombs, did you know the Federal explosives laws do not make it unlawful for a prohibited person (such as a felon) to acquire and possess black powder in quantities up to 50 pounds? BP was reportedly used in the Boston bombs. If only we had a way to record black powder purchases, or stop bad guys from buying it.

The whole concept is lost to you Lawrence, Its not about the guns so much. I do enjoy shooting, I like the complexity, the concentration to do it well.
I enjoy the company of the others, who are respectful, peaceful people.

What I do abhor is the manner in which these laws were passed, the absence of everyone together making a decision and correcting some of these problems.

It cannot be done with blinders on, with the lack of respect for others. The incursion of the police into people’s privacy, the letters to the returned vets made by bureaucrats rendering them mentally impaired.

I am much more than a gun owner. I am a parent, a sister, a daughter and friend to a few people. When I see some thing I see is wrong, I will stand up, I will not back down, not much different to you.

You and I have stood on either side of the discussion for several weeks now. How about we see what can be done about the crime, the drugs and the gangs.

@ Julie
The laws were passed a 4pm in the afternoon. The governor signed them that evening. You say you abhor the way this law was passed yet this same method has been used by other Governors much more often and you never uttered a peep.

Returning veterans should not be given “gun therapy” and they should no longer have access to the same weaponry they had during combat.

You and I have stood on either side of this discussion and I have discussed the methods I feel would bring more balance to the laws and to violent criminals. I will take your extended hand as a show of faith, however the comment you posted this morning is typically misleading so it appears to me that we will remain in respectful opposition.

@178 Raphael, I agree, our society is changing. Kids growing up these days with 9-10 siblings from 9-10 different males(can’t even say fathers cause there not around and supporting). Kids grow up to no respect for life and take what they want. They are not law abiding and our jails are full.
I also agree CNN is crazy, but wanted to let Lawrence know I didn’t get my info from that bogus Onion. BTW- he sure likes to use bogus reports(check 179).
Maybe we should make a law not allowing the sale of pressure cookers! Have a nice day!

Gallup: Only 4% of Americans Think Gun Control is an Important Problem
April 16, 2013

Only 4 percent of Americans think guns and gun control are an important problem facing the country, according to Gallup, and far more Americans are concerned about the economy, unemployment and the federal debt.

In its poll from Apr. 4-7, Gallup surveyed 1,005 adults by telephone and asked, “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?”

Respondents answered in the following order:

Economy in general 24%

Unemployment/Jobs 18%

Dissatisfaction with Government 16%

Federal budget deficit/Federal debt 11%

Healthcare 6%

Ethical/Moral/Family decline 5%

Immigration/Illegal aliens 4%

Education 4%

Guns/Gun control 4%

Situation with North Korea 4%

Lack of Money 3%

Welfare 2%

Lack of respect for each other 2%

Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness 2%

Foreign aid/Focus overseas 2%

Taxes 2%

Despite the Obama administration’s strong push for more gun control legislation, few Americans are concerned about the issue.

As Gallup reports, “Few Americans mention guns or immigration as the most important problems facing the nation today, despite the current attention lawmakers in Washington are giving to these issues. The economy still dominates as the top concern, followed by jobs and dissatisfaction with the general way in which Congress and the government work.”

@ Fast Fred
Your comment was biased against certain people you feel are sub human. Are you saying they are the majority?

The data I provided shows that children are often the victims. Over 500 in 2009 yet I hear nothing from about any of the victims including children. It is clear that you care far more about your gun than the victims of gun violence. Unfortunately you do not stand alone in that regard.

@ Julie
There were several bigoted comments waiting to be posted this morning. I edited some and deleted others. However it does not surprise me that you would be blind to bias that is obvious to others.

You conjecture of how the law is applied is off the mark as well but what is new.

@ Julie
Every poll shows that about 90% of Americans want more effective background checks. The gallup results you posted point out a high degree of dissatisfaction with politicians in DC. The vote yesterday will intensify that dissatisfaction.

Although it may well be true, Julie, that 90% of people polled are in favor of, “more effective background checks”, very few have even been asked the question if they they think it’s a ood idea to have, expand background checks that are full of holes, ineffective, easily to bypass and fool and are recorded and maintained to provide a map of all firearm owners, whose future use is totally undefined or restricted.

As for pre-selecting a pet project and blowing it’s seriousness or importance out of proportion (the basic “Chicken Little” tactic), sadly, it’s been used very effectively of late. Somewhere between the last day of the Bush Administration and the first day of the Obama Administration, The American Healthcare System moved from midway in a long list of problems to becoming the absolute number one problem, requiring instant correction, far more important even than a staggering economy in a recession.

While the economy and “stimulation” languished, we forged ahead to totally revise, rather than simply adjust and tune up, our healthcare system. Sometimes, unfortunately, reality actually does follow perception, even perception blown out of proportions, as the American Healthcare System under the Afforable Care Act (Obamacare)is well on it’s way to being the biggest problem on an even longer list of things that need correction.

@ Julie.
Yeah. Right. Lets make sure that people with pre existing condition go without coverage. Or that seniors go back to the donut hole. Or that students can not longer be on their parents policy. Please make sure you keep repeating that until the election in 2014.

More on the poll by Gallup. There ARE more important things to get done than harass law abiding people.

“Mayor Bloomberg may be beyond calming, a man who obviously needs more than 16 ounces of something stronger than a Slurpee to get a grip on himself. “Today’s vote is a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington. More than 40 U.S. senators would rather turn their backs on the 90 percent of Americans who support comprehensive background checks than buck the increasingly extremist wing of the gun lobby.”

The mayor’s percentages are suspect, too. A new Gallup telephone poll, taken earlier this month, reveals that most Americans aren’t seeing a lot of backs turned on them. Gallup finds that only 4 percent of Americans think guns and gun control is an important issue, ranking far behind the economy, jobs, dissatisfaction with the government, the budget, health care, immigration and schools. None of Mayor Bloomberg’s millions could change that, so maybe he’s entitled to his insensate rage. But only as long as he stays inside and off the street.”

@ realist
You state that the Obama administration supplied guns to narco-terrorist gangsters as if they did so simply to give them guns. In fact the original “Fast and Furious” was called “Operation Wide Receiver.” It was initiated during the Bush administration. I have never heard one person from the right levy criticism against it. Not once. A recent inspector general’s report criticized both operations as ineffective and seriously flawed. I agree with that report. Whenever I disagree with the President I speak out.

On the other hand you offer excuses and comparisons for the NRA’s attempt to allow felons to acquire guns, without background checks. Do you ever criticize the NRA or do you just blindly follow?

Obama’s now failed gun control legislation needed 60 votes to pass, rather than a simple majority, because of a bipartisan agreement to designed to prevent filibusters of Obama’s gun control proposals. Without the bipartisan agreement designed to prevent filibusters, Obama’s gun control offering might never have come to a vote, because opponents could filibuster Obama’s gun control proposal indefinitely.

In order to avoid filibusters keeping Obama’s gun control plan from coming to a vote, and not having any chance of becoming law, advocates of Obama’s gun control proposals agreed to the 60 vote requirement for passage. Blame the bipartisan agreement if you must, but it did prevent a party line imposition of the anti-freedom agenda. Blame the Democrats who voted for freedom, instead of voting for Obama’s agenda. Blame the NRA for protecting our Second Amendment rights. Blame the Republicans, because they favor freedom over government control. Blame Obama for his failure to accurately read the mood of the country and the Senate.

2014 will, with the recent memory of anti-freedom liberals trying to impose Obama’s gun control agenda on an unwilling populace, and with the costs and short comings of Obamacare becoming painfully obvious; be an interesting election. Perhaps an amplified repeat of the 2010 mid-terms will occur, and the anti-freedom crowd will be checked in their attempts to inflict their anti-freedom agenda on the rest of us.

larry: “You state that the Obama administration supplied guns to narco-terrorist gangsters as if they did so simply to give them guns.”

No, I simply stated the fact that the Obama supplied guns to narco-terrorist gangsters, which no rational human being can dispute. I did, however neglect to mention the fact that the Obama administration’s provision of these guns to the narco-terrorist gangsters was illegal.

Can we both agree that the Obama administration DID provide guns to narco-terrorists in violation of existing law?

Look at it this way: If BUSH had illegally provided guns to narco-terrorist gangsters, how difficult would it be for you to see how wrong it was for our government to provide guns to narco-terrorist gangsters… Not very.

You keep teying to dress up yoyr pig, Lawrence, “Wide Receiver” was a completely different program than the now infamous “Fast & Furious” debacle. “Wide Receiver” had ended before the amatuers of The Obama Administration waded in throwing their inexperienced weight around. Neither program turned out to be effective, as you suggest, the difference being one was ended, when discovered to be ineffective, and the other was continued and eventually covered up.

If you would take your focus, out of your other end, you might realize that the difference between the NRA, a private member organization, and the Government of the United States is significant.

Ignoring the rantings of the NRA, or any other private organization, is an entirely different matter than dealing with what is more frequently amounting to “rantings” by the Federal Government, ot at least the Executive Branch of the Government.

You are absolutely correct, Lawrence, “Neither the Health Care Legislation not the SAFE Act will be repealed”, while either Governor Cuomo or President Obama hold their current offices, and control the veto pen.

The vast majority of Americans fully understand the reality of that situation and will hopefully deal with each situation in the next election cycle.

When the cure, for what is ailing us, fails to live up to it’s falsely advertised and deliberately exaggerated advantages and benefits, the sensible approach is to abandon that cure and develop rational alternatives, that have always been available, but were purposely ignored for personal political advantage.

It may take a while to redirect the trains, but neither 2016 nor 2014 are that far away.

@ Albert
The tea party has destroyed the republican party. Their radical agenda has turned off most people in the country and this last election was the beginning of the end. In spite of historic spending the republicans did not take the White House and in fact lost ground in congress.

Yes, I understand that it is your wish for people with pre existing conditions to be excluded from insurance and you wish seniors to be priced out of the drugs they need. There are many benefits to the health care bill that serve people very well and I understand your wish to deny them these benefits while the costs spiral out of control. However there is no chance the health legislation (nor the SAFE Act) will be repealed. 2014 will prove my point.

I am happy to disappoint you. I am not at all embarrassed by the NRA, and I am very embarrassed by the Obama administration’s illegal provision of guns to narco-terrorist gangsters.

Though obviously embarrassing for someone so partisan a leftists as you, I eagerly look forward to your condemnation of the Obama administration, for having given guns to narco-terrorist gangsters, and for your admission that Obama’s Fast and Furious fiasco was his own responsibility.

@ realist
I agree with the report that criticizes both administration and that is the last time I will repeat this to you.

However thanks for confirming you are in favor of the NRA proposal that felons should be allowed to have guns. That is sort of wild-eyed idea that will lead to further defeats for the far right in 2014.

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.